Yvette Cooper: The Government, on 17 May, laid before Parliament the statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure required to commence Part 7 Chapter 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and incorporate the Crown into the planning system.
	They are:
	The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (Commencement No. 9 and Consequential Provisions) Order 2006 (SI 2006No. 1281 (C. 43));
	The Town and Country Planning (Application of Subordinate Legislation to the Crown) Order 2006 (SI 2006 No. 1282);
	The Planning (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Hazardous Substances) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No. 1283); and
	The Planning (National Security Directions and Appointed Representatives) (England) Rules 2006 (SI 2006 No. 1284).
	These instruments will commence Part 7 Chapter 1 of the 2004 Act which will end the Crown's immunity from the planning system by applying the planning Actsto the Crown. These will apply existing planning subordinate legislation to the Crown with modifications where necessary; amend the listed buildings and hazardous substances regulations; and provide rules covering the role of special advocates for planning cases with national security implications.
	These instruments will come into force on7 June 2006.

Harriet Harman: The following table list sets out the key performance targets* that have been set for Her Majesty's Courts Service for 2006-07:
	
		
			 Relevant PSA Target 2006-07 
			 PSA 1 To improve the delivery of justice by reducing the proportion of ineffective trials to no more than 15.5 per cent. in the Crown Court and no more than 21 per cent. in the magistrates' courts. 
			 PSA 2 To reassure the public, reducing the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour and building confidence in the Criminal Justice System with compromising fairness. 
			 PSA 4 By 2009-10, increase the proportion of care cases being completed in the courts within 40 weeks by not less than 49 per cent. in the County Court and not less than 61 per cent. in the magistrates' courts. 
			 PSA 5 To achieve earlier and more proportionate resolution of legal problems and disputes by:Increasing the opportunities for people involvedin court cases to settle their dispute out of court to 40 per cent.; andReducing delays in resolving those disputes that need to be decided by the courts by increasing the proportion of small claims hearing that take place within target time by 81 per cent. 
		
	
	Copies of the HM Courts Service business plan for 2006-07 have been place in the Libraries of both Houses.
	*More information on these and other key supporting targets are published in the Strategic and Business Plans, which includes how HMCS helps deliver PSA1 and 2 (joint Criminal Justice System targets).

Bill Rammell: This announcement covers repayment arrangements for student loans made from September 2006 onwards for borrowers who move abroad after completing their courses.
	Deferred fee loans will be made available in 2006-07 for EU students who are accepted at our universities with the first full cohort eligible to repay fromApril 2010.
	Repayments will be collected directly by the Student Loans Company (SLC) and, as for students who stay in the UK after finishing their course, will remain income contingent with repayments based on 9 per cent. of income over an earnings threshold.
	The Government are determined to ensure that all EU students repay fee loans on an income contingent basis.
	Our policy is for repayments to be fair and affordable and that on leaving their course, all those who can contribute to the costs of their Higher Education, should do so.
	This will ensure that students returning to countries where average earnings are low, will repay on an income contingent basis.
	However living costs and earnings vary from country to country and so we will use an index of price levels to establish fair earnings thresholds based on where borrowers choose to live. This principle will also apply where borrowers move outside the EU.
	Countries will be banded according to price levels and the bands will be as follows:
	
		
			 Band Price level index (UK=100) RepaymentThreshold(UK=£15,000) 
			 A 0<30 £3,000 
			 B 30<50 £6,000 
			 C 50<70 £9,000 
			 D 70<90 £12,000 
			 E 90<110 £15,000 
			 F 110<130 £18,000 
			 G 130+ £21,000 
		
	
	In addition, for student loans paid out from 2006 all borrowers will have entered into an enforceable contract to allow debts to be pursued in the courts as necessary, wherever a borrower may choose to live.
	From 2007 students planning to move overseas after finishing their course, will be required to sign a repayment agreement with the Student Loans Company that establishes how they will repay their loan once they have moved overseas.
	This means the SLC will be able to take action to enforce the debt in the courts both in the UK and abroad if necessary. We intend to make use of EC regulation 44/2001 which will allow the SLC to enforce a judgement made in the UK courts in the rest of the EU.
	These arrangements will be enacted in regulations which are expected to be laid before Parliament later in the year.

General- Affairs and External Relations Council 15 May 2006

Andy Burnham: I am pleased to announce that the first report of the Better Regulation of Over-the-counter Medicines Initiative (BROMI) was published today and has been placed in the Library. Copies are available from hon. Members in the Vote Office.
	The report contains the BROMI group's first recommendations to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens surrounding over the counter (OTC) medicines regulation. The recommendations have been accepted.
	The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will introduce, with immediate effect, a new scheme for the self-certification of certain changes to the patient information of over the counter medicines and a new transparent complaints procedure in respect of patient information.

John Reid: I would like to provide an update on the issue of foreign national prisoners. As my predecessor promised, I will set out the latest information I haveon the foreign national prisoners released without consideration of deportation having been made since February 1999. I will set out eight priority areas for management action to achieve our long-term policy goals on foreign national prisoners. And I will set out two immediate changes to current guidance which I now believe are necessary to deal with the present serious situation.
	I would like first, however, to set the handling of the consideration and deportation of foreign national prisoners into context. The context is the backdrop of mass migration prompted by the end of the Cold War and other global changes. The effects of this can be seen in the huge increases in the past decade in asylum-seeking, in immigration, and generally in the numbers of passenger journeys all over the world.
	Against this backdrop, our immigration and asylum systems have secured notable achievements in recent years: the number of asylum seekers has been reduced by 72 per cent from its peak in 2002; we now decide73 per cent of asylum cases within 8 weeks compared to the 22 months it took to decide asylum cases (including older cases) in 1997; and I can say that February and March were the first months in which we have achieved the target known as the 'tipping point', with removals running at the highest rate ever.
	It is in this context that the issue of foreign national prisoners should be considered.
	My first priority has been to protect the public by identifying, controlling, considering for deportation and, where appropriate, deporting the foreign national prisoners who were released without due consideration of deportation having been made. I am today reporting on progress since my written statement to the House on 15 May, Official Report, column 40WS.
	Analysis of these cases has, as I indicated in an oral answer in the House on 15 May, revealed some duplicate files and the total overall number of these cases currently stands at 1,019, although it is possible that this figure may either reduce further due to the discovery of additional duplicates as the process of analysis is completed; or rise as the Immigration and Nationality Directorate re-checks that it has captured every relevant case.
	In sharing information on these cases with the House, I would like to add the caveat that the investigative process has uncovered flaws in data collection, not least the lack of a unique personal number for use by the Home Office, prisons and the police to identify an individual. An additional factor rendering the information subject to change is the continuing examination of the records by all relevant agencies, including for re-offending. I can therefore only give the best information available to me as of today on the 1,019 foreign prisoners.
	Subject to these caveats, the figure for the number of offenders convicted of a serious offence, as defined in my statement of 15 May, now stands at 186. As Isaid at that time, the previous figure of 179 was liable to change since the scrutiny of around 200 of the1,019 cases was yet to be completed. That has so far resulted in an additional seven cases being identified in this category.
	Of these 186, 37 have been convicted of the most serious offences, defined as murder, manslaughter, rape and child sex offences. This is an increase of two since 15 May as a result of the scrutiny of past offences. All four of the murderers are now detained in prison. Of the other 33 most serious cases which include rapists and child sex offenders, two are believed dead and 23 are in prison. We have so far identified that eight of these 37 have re-offended since release (of which six have been convicted) but no offence discovered so far has involved violence or a sexual element.
	Of the 149 "more serious" offenders, 66 are now under our control and six have been deported. Of these 149, 13 have re-offended following release (of which11 have been convicted) with a crime involving violence or a sexual element.
	All of the 1,019 have now been assessed and consideration of the case for deportation has started in 999 cases. There has been an initial decision to deport in 778 of these cases. Of these 778,197 are detained, one is electronically tagged, 10 are reporting regularly to the Immigration Service or Prison Service and37 have been deported or removed.
	As police and agencies focus hard on these cases, I believe it is essential to be clear about our long-term policy. My objectives are straightforward: all non-EEA nationals who are given a custodial sentence should face deportation; and deportation should happen as early as possible in that sentence. But to achieve these long-term objectives, I believe management must address eight priority areas.
	Firstly, there is today no unique personal number for individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice, immigration and asylum systems. I have instructed management to tell me how this can change.
	Secondly, as my predecessor has already set out, there are prisoners within the system whose nationality is not known. There is currently no legal obligation on people who are suspected, charged or convicted to declare their nationality and no sanction against them if they refuse to co-operate or they declare a nationality falsely I have tasked management to come up with a way of stopping this, even if it needs legislation.
	Thirdly, there have almost certainly been foreign nationals whose nationality was known but who were not referred to Immigration and Nationality Directorate for consideration for deportation. For example, before September 2004, guidance to prisons on which cases to refer to Immigration and Nationality Directorate covered only those cases which were subject to a court recommendation and omitted to cover other categories of case which should have been considered by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. In addition, a HO Circular to police of December 2004 sets broad criteria by which the police should refer cases to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It is not clear enough that this Circular has been systematically implemented. I have demanded therefore that management ensure all future instructions are given to all agencies of the criminal justice, asylum and immigration systems and are both consistent and fully implemented.
	Fourthly, the criteria governing which individuals should be considered for deportation appear to have been varied over time on authority which is unclear. They have then not been consistently applied. For example, the derivation of the inclusion of those convicted of three or more offences over a five-year period in the criteria, as set out by my predecessor on3 May, is unclear. I have ordered the policy officials to audit trail all policy criteria and the process by which they ensure that guidance is both clear and consistently applied.
	Fifthly, there are foreign national prisoners who were considered for deportation under the current criteria, but where the decision was made not to deport, or where a decision to deport was frustrated by difficulties over return to the home country. I have ordered that all decisions on deportation are now made according to the most robust interpretation of the requirements of our international obligations.
	Sixthly, I have instructed managers to work with colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland to audit the numbers of foreign national prisoners released in Scotland and Northern Ireland and to establish how many of these were referred to IND for consideration of deportation. I have demanded clear procedures for dealing with foreign national prisoners held in Scotland and Northern Ireland are written and followed.
	Seventhly, historically there have never been systematic arrangements in place for collecting information on the nationality of mentally disordered offenders, referring them to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and considering them for deportation. This is a hugely difficult group to deal with. But I have tasked officials to construct arrangements for considering deportation where appropriate for people in this group taking account of their very specific circumstances.
	Finally, as my predecessor set out in his statement of 3 May, I have demanded enhanced arrangements to facilitate the return of prisoners earlier in their sentence, including Prisoner Transfer Agreements.
	These eight management priority areas will form the basis of a long-term 'agenda for change' to deal more effectively with foreign national prisoners.
	However, there are also two immediate steps which are forced on me by the urgency of the present problems and the constraints on the system. Those constraints include both the trained caseworking resource available in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to consider cases for deportation, despite the steps we have taken to reinforce the Criminal Casework Team, and detention capacity.
	To enable them to deal effectively with the current flow of cases, I have agreed two immediate changes to the system.
	The first change is to prioritise cases for consideration according to the degree of risk a person poses to the public. At present the criteria for consideration for deportation includes people who have committed several minor and non-violent offences, but excludes those who have had two custodial sentences of under a year for, say, actual bodily harm. This is a perverse outcome in public protection terms. I have therefore authorised that instead of considering for deportation those with three convictions regardless of seriousness or risk, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will now consider for deportation all non-EEA nationals who have been given 12 months prison sentence, either in one sentence or as an aggregate of two or three sentences.
	The second immediate change is to tighten the guidance given to caseworkers in deciding whether or not an individual should be deported. Rule 364 of the Immigration Rules, which sets out the criteria which officials should weigh in the balance against a person's crime in taking the decision whether to deport and which dates back to 1994, currently goes wider than the requirements of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights would stipulate. It is not right that the system should tilt the exercise of discretion in favour of the criminal rather than public safety in this way. I have therefore approved the issuing of new guidance to caseworkers which interprets the decision-making criteria much more tightly.
	I believe that these immediate measures will help to ensure that more of those offenders who pose a risk to public safety are dealt with fairly and efficiently, and will face deportation where that is appropriate.
	None of the reforms set out above, in particular the long-term agenda for change, will be delivered unless the right leadership is in place across the system. I have therefore instructed the new Permanent Secretary of the Home Office to address the following issues as a matter of urgency: performance; weak services, because not every field of our operations matches the standard of the best; leadership and skills, where we have under-invested; fragmentation and silos, exacerbated by communications which are too weak; and systems and processes, which simply need to be stronger.
	And finally, I announced yesterday that the hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), will be taking overall responsibility for this reform agenda, reporting to me. I have told him I want to consider any option he believes feasible, however radical it may be. I intend to report back to the House on progress and proposals for change before the summer recess.

Hilary Benn: I visited Northern Uganda on 15 and16 May to look at the situation on the ground in and to discuss the conflict and other issues affecting our development partnership with President Museveni and his Foreign Minister, Sam Kutesa.
	The security situation in northern Uganda has improved over the last year, as Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) numbers have declined in the face of better performance by Uganda's army and less freedom of movement for the LRA in southern Sudan. LRA attacks have fallen, and some of those displaced by conflict in the eastern part of the region have started to return home. But there are still 2 million people displaced, 1.7 million of whom are living in camps. Fear of the LRA remains strong, especially in the Acholi districts of Kitgum, Gulu and Pader. One young girl I spoke to still walks four hours every day there and back to sleep at a night centre as she has done since 2003 for fear of abduction. People will not go home until they are quite certain it is safe to do so. A significant number of the LRA are now active in Garamba national park in the north-eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), including leaders who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This adds to regional insecurity.
	The humanitarian effort, including the £20 million provided by DFID in 2004-05, has improved conditions in the camps. But the camps are crowded and there are major challenges in providing essential services. I visited Padibe camp in Kitgum district where 35,000 displaced people still live. In the Health Centre, there were only a handful of health workers, no doctor present, beds had no mattresses to hand, there was a shortage of drugs, and no ARVs for HIV-positive patients. Less than six litres of water are available per person per day compared to a humanitarian target of 15 litres per person per day. There is a cholera outbreak in the region. The humanitarian situation continues to demand our attention.
	In my discussions with President Museveni and his Foreign Minister, I emphasised that greater effort was needed to address the humanitarian situation and as security allows to help people return home. We agreed that the Joint Monitoring Committee recently established by the Government and including the core group of bilateral donors (UK, US, Netherlands and Norway), the UN and civil society should help achieve this provided there was an agreed and effectively monitored plan. I made a commitment to continued substantial humanitarian assistance from the UK and for help with recovery when this becomes possible.
	I welcomed President Museveni's discussions with the government of southern Sudan about tackling the LRA, but emphasised that ICC's warrants against the LRA leadership had to be enforced. I also emphasised that the regional integrity of the DRC must be respected. We agreed that a Special Envoy could have an important role to play in achieving the regional cooperation required to deal effectively with the LRA.
	I also emphasised the importance of the government working with the opposition in the new Parliament to strengthen political pluralism and to help achieve an effective and accountable parliamentary process. I raised the care of Dr Kiiza Besigye and President Museveni assured me that due process will be followed in his High Court trial. I also discussed the President's commitment in his election manifesto and subsequent public statements to tackle corruption. Promoting good governance in Uganda is an important priority for the UK.

Visit to Somalia by the Secretary of State

Hilary Benn: On 17 May 2006, 1 visited:
	Wajid, the United Nations' logistics hub for the drought relief operation in Southern Somalia to which DFID has contributed £12 million; and
	Baidoa, the temporary seat of the Somalia Transitional Federal Parliament (TFP) and Government (TFG).
	In Wajid, I saw at first hand the effect of the drought; firstly in an Action Contre Le Faim (ACF) therapeutic feeding centre for malnourished children brought from distances of up to 50 km, and then in a camp occupied by about 11000 people who were living in terrible conditions under very basic shelters, and being fed by the World Food Programme. Now that some rain has arrived, the menfolk have returned to their homes to begin cultivation. However, the harvest will not come for several months, and the families in the camps will need to be cared for in the meantime. I was also able to visit a UNICEF-organised tent school in the camp, where about 300 children and an equal number of boys and girls are enjoyingvery basic primary education for the first time in their lives. UN agency and Non-Governmental Organisation representatives told me that despite the logistical and security problems of working in Somalia, the relief effort had averted a humanitarian disaster, and while I was there I committed a further £2 million to support what I hope will be post-drought operations.
	In Baidoa, I called on President Abdulahi Yusuf Ahmed, Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi, and Parliamentary Speaker Sharif Hassan Sheik Adan, the leaders of the Transitional Institutions. I was struck by the warmth of their welcome, and how, having earlier this year buried their differences, they are trying to build a new administration from absolutely nothing, working from loaned properties including a warehouse converted into a parliamentary chamber. Despite their great fragility, these transitional institutions represent the best hope for taking Somalia forward from over15 years of internal conflict, which sadly has continued with recent fighting in Mogadishu. The President and Prime Minister emphasised the urgent need for support to education—not currently available to the vast majority (about 80 per cent.) of children—and I was able to announce plans for a new £6 million DFID partnership programme with UNICEF and others over three years.
	Building the new institutions, and the systems to bring internal reconciliation, security and stability as pre-requisites for development, will take time, butsome progress is being made. I committed a further £1.5 million to the UNDP-led institutional support programme to the Transitional Institutions.
	We must all hope that the political transition in Somalia, fragile though it still is, will start to bring the stability and security for which the ordinary people of that country have been yearning for so many years. The UK will continue to provide support to the Somali Transitional Institutions to that end.

Mike O'Brien: My right hon. Friend the Attorney General has made the following written ministerial statement:
	"Treasury Counsel is appointed by the Attorney General. In the light of the increase in the complexity of cases prosecuted by Treasury Counsel and the need to ensure that appointments are open and fair, I commissioned a review of the current Treasury Counsel arrangements. The review team, comprising Dru Sharpling, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Crown Prosecution Service, London; Mohammed Aziz, Commissioner at the Commission for Racial Equality; Philip Oliver, a non-executive director of the Crown Prosecution Service and Richard Ferguson QC, has delivered a report to me that includes 23 recommendations, which I have accepted.
	In the course of their work, the review team consulted widely, including members of the judiciary, Treasury Counsel, chairman of the Bar Council and the Crown Prosecution Service and other barristers. Additionally, the CPS conducted, on behalf of the review team, an independent consultation exercise from an equalities perspective. I am placing a copy of the review team's report in the Library of the House.
	The recommendations should ensure that Treasury Counsel is appointed in accordance with open and fair competition rules that promote equality and diversity, whilst maintaining the high standards of service provided by them. Other important recommendations address new ways of monitoring the performance of Treasury Counsel, which delivers a valuable service to the public.
	The addendum to the report sets out proposals for the appointment of Treasury Counsel outside London and an alternative approach for dealing with serious criminal cases that would not be conducted at the Central Criminal Court".

Stephen Ladyman: In the July 2004 the Secretary of State for transport announced the creation of the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). The Fund will support:
	the costs of smarter, innovative local transport packages that combine demand management measures, such as road pricing, with measures to encourage modal shift, and better bus services;
	local mechanisms which raise new funding for transport schemes; and
	regional, inter-regional and local schemes that are beneficial to national productivity
	Today I am publishing further guidance on our approach to the first of these objectives, setting out the criteria we intend to use to assess bids for a second round of pump priming to support scheme development. Copies of the guidance are available from the Department for Transport (DfT) web site at www.dft.gov.uk and in the Library of the House.
	The TIF represents a new approach by the Department for Transport (DfT) to the allocation of some of its budget. Through the TIF, resources will be directed towards the achievement of two high priority objectives—specifically tackling congestion and improving productivity. The principle underlying the TIF is that resources should be allocated on the basis of an assessment of how these objectives can be most effectively and sustainably met. The provision of pump priming funding only applies to congestion TIF schemes.
	"The Future of Transport" White Paper identified the risk that, despite effective policies to promote smarter choices and network management, without radical measures, including more effective demand management, road congestion will spread over time to longer periods in the day, and to more road users. This would have negative impact on both quality of life and on the economy. Local road pricing schemes are also important in order to pilot technology and systems and to inform the decisions on the development of national road pricing in the longer term.
	We recognise that the development and appraisal of such packages will be a complex and costly process for many local authorities. That is why the Government decided to offer a limited number of local authorities some financial assistance with scheme development in advance of substantive congestion TIF funding. In July 2005 it was announced that up to £18 million was set aside between 2005-06 and 2007-08. The first allocations were made to seven areas in November 2005. The guidance published today covers the second allocation of funding.
	It explains the basis on which DfT intends to allocate this pump priming funding for the second round and sets out the information that will be required from local authorities intending to bid. The guidance applies both to authorities considering putting forward new proposals and to authorities who successfully obtained funding in the first round of pump priming and who wish to apply for further funding. Eligibility for funding is restricted to local authorities in England.
	The process for allocating pump priming funding is separate from the process of allocating the main TIF. Full guidance on the TIF was published in January 2006. It is not necessary to have had a successful pump-priming bid in order to apply for funding to the TIF through the congestion entry point. Nor does a successful pump-priming bid offer any guarantee of success in a bid for main TIF scheme funding.

Derek Twigg: The Department for Transport have this morning published a progress report describing the substantial amount of work carried out in renewing and upgrading this key railway route, along with the commitments due for completion by the end of 2008.
	Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and will be available on the DFT website www.dft.gov.uk.